The user interface of a software program is the means through which the
user communicates with the program. In its short history, user interface
technology has evolved from the teletypewriter and paper punch card to the
prevailing modern user interface in which a user types commands at a video
display terminal or screen, presses specially-designated function keys, or
uses a mechanical pointer called a mouse to select a command on the
screen. Many popular user interfaces such as Microsoft Windows, OS/2, and
the Apple Macintosh Finder follow the design standards of graphical user
interfaces ("GUIs"), which combine on-screen visual elements with more
traditional methods such as typing at a computer keyboard. User interfaces
have become increasingly important in software development as as the user
interface is the primary way a user interacts with a program.

Considering the importance of user interface in a software program, the
issue of providing legal protection for user interfaces through the law of
intellectual property rights has become critical in the greater discourse
on the protection of software programs. This project examines in the
detail the protection extended to user interfaces through the means of
copyright laws.

The term graphical user interface (GUI) is used to describe the user
interface of most modern operating systems. A GUI is a method of
interacting with a computer through a metaphor of direct manipulation of
graphical images and widgets such as windows, menus, radio buttons, check
boxes, and icons in addition to text and employs a pointing device (such
as a mouse, trackball, or touch screen) in addition to a keyboard. The GUI
is based on the famous What you see is what you get (WYSIWYG) principle of
modern computing Examples of systems that support GUIs are Mac OS and
Microsoft Windows. The following screenshots show the graphical user
interfaces of these popular operating systems:

An example of graphical user interface in Windows XP

1.1 The Components of GUI

Several industry experts refer to GUIs as WIMPs which stands for Windows,
Icons, Menus, Pointer. Graphical user interfaces feature the following
basic components:
# Pointer: A symbol that appears on the display screen and that you move
to select objects and commands. Usually, the pointer appears as a small
angled arrow. Text -processing applications, however, use an I-beam
pointer that is shaped like a capital I.
# Pointing device: A device, such as a mouse or trackball that enables you
to select objects on the display screen.
# Icons: Small pictures that represent commands, files, or windows. By
moving the pointer to the icon and pressing a mouse button, you can
execute a command or convert the icon into a window. You can also move the
icons around the display screen as if they were real objects on your desk.
# Desktop: The area on the display screen where icons are grouped is often
referred to as the desktop because the icons are intended to represent
real objects on a real desktop.
# Windows: You can divide the screen into different areas. In each window,
you can run a different program or display a different file. You can move
windows around the display screen, and change their shape and size at
will.
# Menus: Most graphical user interfaces let you execute commands by
selecting a choice from a menu.

1.2 The Evolution of GUI

The precursor to GUIs was invented by researchers at the Stanford Research
Institute (led by Doug Engelbart) with the development and use of
text-based hyperlinks manipulated with a mouse for the On-Line System.

Researchers at Xerox Corporation's Palo Alto Research Center in the 1970s
further refined the concept of hyperlinks and extended it to graphics and
used GUIs as the primary interface for the Xerox Alto computer. Most
modern general-purpose GUIs are derived from this system. For this reason
some people call this class of interface a PARC User Interface (PUI) (note
that PUI is also an acronym for perceptual user interface).

The emergence of the Apple Macintosh with its easy to use graphical user
interfaces made GUI’s popular and soon the GUI evolved into a standard
component in software products in the information technology industry as
all industry leaders like Microsoft Atari, Three Rivers Computer
Corporation, Digital Research and Lotus introduced GUI based products (the
major exception being IBM which was slow in adapting GUI as part of its
software products).

The ease of use provided by GUIs and the rapid advancements in computing
technology and a rapid decline in the cost of hardware that supports GUIs
has meant that that GUIs base products dominate the software markets
across the globe. Today well over 90% of the world’s users employ one
GUI-faced OS or another and all leading platforms like the Mac OS X, the
Windows XP and Linux OS use graphics bases user interfaces as the primary
mean of access.
In the early 90’s Microsoft took the next big leap in GUI revolution by
adding multimedia components like sound , animation and video to the GUI
environments. In the years to come GUI will evolve further to include
virtial reality components (3D technology) and other features that would
make GUI’s even more user-friendly like voice recognition, touch screens,
retinal and fingerprint scans for security and holographic
representations. GUI is no longer confined to just computers but is being
adapted to a variety of new age gadgets like mobile phones, hand-held
personal digital assistants (PDA’s), MP3 players, gaming machines and
digital cameras. It is almost axiomatic to state that in the years to come
the role of the GUI environment would be central to computing technology
efforts in improving user experience and increase the spread of the
digital revolution across the globe.

1.3 Menu Command Hierarchy

Menu Command hierarchy is a fundamental component of the user interface.
It is the structure and placement of commands on menus within a program.
Essentially it is the selection or arrangement of commands within a
particular software program.

Copyright Protection for Graphical User Interface and Menu Command
Hierarchy has one of the central issues in the discourse on copyright
protection for software programs. Since the time, software programs have
been brought within the ambit of copyright protection; literal
infringement of copyrighted programs has been a relatively straightforward
issue that has been easy to deal with. However, protection of ‘non-literal
elements’ of a program like user interfaces has been much more complicated
and controversial. Courts have held that the literal elements of a
computer program may be copyrighted, as can the no literal elements, but
that a copyright in the no literal elements may only be obtained if they
contain original expression.

The application of ‘non-literal' copyright protection has been the focus
of a heated debate within the software industry and the academia. Several
commentators have argued that reluctance by courts to grant any kind of
intellectual property protection for graphical user interfaces has been
counterproductive to consumers and to the software industry. Consequently,
there have been no real developments since 1984, when the first graphical
software program was introduced and until a consistent and reliable method
of protecting graphical user interfaces is applied by courts (to spark
competition and in turn, to promote technological progress,) computer
users, for the most part, would relegated to the uniformity of GUI designs
without major innovations. Professor Arthur R. Miller who supports
protection for the user has argued that "a computer program's user
interface design is extremely resource-intensive, and a well-composed user
interface is frequently the precise feature that renders a computer
program successful... Promoting the unauthorized copying of interfaces
penalizes the creative effort of the original designer, something that
runs directly counter to the core purposes of copyright law because it may
freeze or substantially impede human innovation and technological growth".

Further, from a legal perspective, a user interface is an is an
audiovisual work that may contain a screen display which often contains
sufficient expression in its selection and arrangement, as well as in the
individual elements, to warrant copyright protection. Also, an audiovisual
work may be protected as a compilation if there is a sufficient amount of
originality in the selection and arrangement of the individual elements
contained in the work.

On the other hand, several commentators like Gerard J. Lewis, Jr have
argued that at the user interface level, standardization is critical for
the widespread adoption of new computer programs and the operating systems
that run them. Standardization permits the transfer of computer files
among users and across different programs and reduces training costs.
Standardization also meets the needs of users who want to rely on a common
user interface without having to learn and unlearn incompatible programs.

Also, they argue that there is no need to provide further incentives to
the software industry as the rapid developments in the past indicate the
lack of copyright protection does not hinder the progress of the industry
and more importantly interface copyright will actually retard progress, as
interface development is evolutionary in nature. For example the Macintosh
interface was based on ideas tried previously by Xerox and SRI, and before
that by the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

Proof of Infringement of User Interfaces

In Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai , Inc, the court
developed the test for infringment of non-literal elements of a program by
another known abstraction-filtration-comparison test. In this test. two
programs are separated by their levels of abstraction, any expression
which was not protectable by copyright is fitlered or excluded and then
the similarities in the remaining elements of the two programs are
compared for coyright infringement.
The courts have applied the abstraction-filtration-comparison test in
several leading cases like Engineering Dynamics v. Structural Software to
determine the infringement of user interfaces. However in Lotus v. Borland
International, while deciding on the question of copyright infringement of
Menu Command hierarchy, the court refused to apply the
abstraction-filtration-comparison test on the grounds that the question
before the court was whether the Menu Command hierarchy as whole was
copyrightable or not (and not dealing with specific elements).

Apple Computer v. Microsoft Corp.

In Apple Computer v. Microsoft , the court found that Microsoft's Windows
2.03 and 3.0 did not infringe Apple's graphical user interface, because a
license given to Microsoft by Apple made it unnecessary for the court to
determine whether Apple's user interface should receive copyright
protection.

The Apple case involved a graphical user interface that allowed a user to
easily communicate with Apple's Lisa and Macintosh computers. This
graphical user interface was based on a desktop metaphor including icons,
pull-down menus, and windows for viewing various items at the same time.
The user could interact with these elements using a device called a mouse.
Apple filed a claim for copyright infringement of its graphical user
interface when Microsoft released Windows 1.0; an operating system which
Apple alleged was substantially similar to Apple's graphical user
interface.

In 1985, shortly after Apple complained, the parties agreed to a license
giving Microsoft the right to use and sublicense derivative works based on
Windows 1.0. The dispute seemed to be settled, as an infringement claim
cannot be based on licensed similarities.

However, when Microsoft released Windows 2.03 and 3.0, Apple filed a claim
alleging the new versions exceeded the scope of the license and infringed
its copyright on the graphical user interface of its Lisa and Macintosh
computers.

The court found Microsoft's visual displays were an authorized use, rather
than an infringement. The court interpreted the term "derivative works" in
the license agreement to mean that Windows 1.0 was a derivative work of
Apple's Lisa and Macintosh graphical user interfaces. Consequently, the
derivative works in the license agreement were the visual displays and not
the graphical user interface itself. Therefore, the license permitted
Microsoft to create derivative works based on the visual displays rather
than the Windows 1.0 interface. This allowed Microsoft to create a
graphical user interface with greater similarity to the user interface of
the Lisa and Macintosh.

The court further held that since the vast portion of the user interface
i.e. the visual display, was not capable of constituting copied material,
therefore there was no copyright infringement.

Although the court did not find that Microsoft's graphical user interface
infringed Apple's interface, it is submitted that the decision does not
stand for the proposition that graphical user interfaces cannot receive
copyright protection.

3.2 Engineering Dynamics v. Structural Software

The court in Engineering Dynamics v. Structural Software held that a
computer program user interface, in the form of input and output formats,
was copyrightable. Engineering Dynamics developed a computer program
called SACS IV, which was designed to solve structural engineering
problems. The input formats, which contained this information, were
entered into the computer through the use of decks of eighty column
keypunch cards
Structural Software developed its own structural analysis program called
StruCAD. Structural Software borrowed heavily from SACS's user interface,
basing it on an eighty column format. Engineering Dynamics brought a claim
against Structural Software alleging that the sequence and organization of
its input and output formats were copyrightable and that Structural
Software copied fifty-six of its input formats.

The Fifth Circuit determined that the non-literal elements of a computer
program, such as structure, sequence, and organization, might receive
copyright protection. The next question the court addressed was whether
Structural Software copied Engineering Dynamics' input and output formats.

To answer this question the court adopted the
abstraction-filtration-comparison test. In the abstraction portion of the
analysis, the court dissected the user interface into varying levels of
generality to aid in distilling the protectable elements from those, which
were merely ideas, methods of operation, and other unprotect able elements.

The court " stated that abstraction of ideas from expression [did] not
pose a particular conceptual hurdle in this case for three reasons."
First, the input and output formats were analytically distinct from the
remaining components of the SACS program. Second, [Engineering Dynamics]
claimed protection of input and output formats not individually but en
masse." The court found that since Engineering Dynamics sought protection
for the formats as a whole, there was no need to determine whether each
individual component was an expression or an un-protectable idea. In the
filtration portion of the analysis, the court sought to isolate
non-copyrightable elements from each level of the user interface. After
applying the various copyright limitation doctrines to the remaining
elements at each level of generality, the court determined that the only
potential area of un-protectability was the impact of the scenes a faire
doctrine.

The court then remanded the case to the district court to complete the
filtration analysis and compare the remaining elements of Engineering
Dynamics' user interface to decide if the interfaces were substantially
similar. Thus, the court found that user interfaces, even input and output
formats such as SACS that bear only the slightest bit of expression, are
copyrightable.

Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software International

The scope of user interface copyright reached its maximum breadth in Lotus
Development Corp. v. Paperback Software International . The plaintiff's
spreadsheet i.e. Lotus 1-2-3 was written in 1982. At roughly the same time
that the developers of Lotus 1-2-3 were creating the initial version of
that spreadsheet, an independent software developer began to develop his
own electronic spreadsheet. This spreadsheet eventually became the
defendant's VP-Planner program. As the developer of VP-Planner continued
to improve his program before its release, Paperback decided that the only
way to compete effectively against the growing commercial success of Lotus
1-2-3 was to make VP-Planner "compatible" with 1-2-3 by ensuring that the
arrangement and names of commands and menus in VP-Planner were identical
to those in 1-2- 3. VP-Planner was introduced in 1985.Lotus filed suit
against Paperback Software for infringement of its user interface by
VP-Planner of its copyrighted 1-2-3 program at the beginning of 1987.

The court rejected Paperback's standardization arguments on two grounds.
First, the court viewed its own role as one limited to enforcing the
mandates of legislation and resolving unanswered questions in a manner
consistent with legislative policy. On a fundamental level, the court
refused to engage in "lawmaking" by adopting Paperback's policy arguments
as the basis for its decision. The court simply read Paperback's
standardization arguments as inconsistent with Congress' intent in passing
the Copyright Act. Second, and most importantly, the court specifically
rejected Paperback's incremental innovations and de facto industry
standard arguments.

The court held that held that the Menu Command hierarchy of Lotus 1-2-3
constituted copyrightable subject matter and that Paperback's VP-Planner
program infringed the Lotus 1-2-3 user interface. The court relied
primarily on the idea-expression distinction in copyright law to reach
this conclusion. According to the court the mere idea of an electronic
spreadsheet was not copyrightable. However, the court noted that the
general idea of an electronic spreadsheet could manifest itself through a
variety of expressions. If those expressions are found not to be essential
to an electronic spreadsheet, the court then concluded, the expression
would be copyrightable. The court examined the menu command system and
determined that the particular system designed by Lotus was not essential
to the electronic spreadsheet and was thus copyrightable.

Having found the menu command system to be a mode of expression, the court
then determined the command structure of Lotus 1-2-3 constituted original
expression because other electronic spreadsheet programs incorporate
different command structures. Finally, the court determined that the Lotus
1- 2-3 user interface was a substantial portion of the program, accounting
for the program's overall popularity. Because Paperback's program copied a
substantial portion of Lotus 1-2-3, the district court concluded that
Paperback Software was liable to Lotus for copyright infringement the user
interface was an expression of an idea (the idea could be expressed in
several different ways) and therefore, was entitled to copyright
protection.

Lotus v. Borland International

The Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International decision provides
greater restrictions to copyright protection for user interfaces than any
other case to date. It is also the only case involving copyright
protection for user interfaces that the Supreme Court affirmed, although
it was a four-to-four vote and no opinion was delivered.

Lotus filed a claim for copyright infringement after Borland made "a
virtually identical copy of the entire Lotus 1-2-3 menu" command
hierarchy. The district court ruled that the Lotus menu command hierarchy
was a copyrightable expression because "[a] very satisfactory spreadsheet
menu tree [could] be constructed using different commands and a different
command structure from those of Lotus 1-2-3."

On appeal, however, the First Circuit overruled the district court
decision. The court applied a test that eliminated copyright protection
for user interfaces. This test was inconsistent with established copyright
principles. The Lotus court found that the menu hierarchy of a computer
spreadsheet program was a method of operation and, therefore, could not
receive copyright protection.

While deciding on the issue of copyright infringement, the court drew an
analogy with VCRs. The court stated that regardless of the arrangement of
the VCR buttons, they, like the commands in the menu command hierarchy,
remained a way of operating the VCR. Similarly, the court reasoned that
even if Lotus arranged the menu commands differently or chose different
labels, the menu commands still represented a means to use the program.
Determining that giving expressive names to menu commands did not turn an
uncopyrightable method of operation into copyrightable subject matter, the
court held that Borland did not infringe Lotus' copyright by incorporating
an identical copy of Lotus' menu commands into its Quattro programs.

In its analysis, the court found that applying the
abstraction-filtration-comparison test would be misleading because the
initial question should be whether the menu command hierarchy could be
copyrighted at all, and not whether individual elements may be
copyrighted.

Next, the court went on to determine whether the Lotus menu command
hierarchy was a method of operation. The Lotus court defined a "method of
operation" as "the means by which a person operates something." In
applying this definition the court found that the menu hierarchy was a
method of operation, and thus, could not be protected. The court also
found that the selection and arrangement could not be protected because it
was also part of the method of operation.

However, the court acknowledged it was only deciding whether a particular
aspect of the user interface, the menu hierarchy, could receive protection
and not the user interface as a whole. It is submitted that this decision
did not automatically bar protection for user interfaces, because the
court was not deciding whether the interface, as a whole, was
copyrightable.

The Lotus court also cited the need for computer compatibility as a reason
for not protecting the menu hierarchy. The idea of a menu structure or a
desktop interface, however, does not preclude others from developing
another desktop interface or menu. In addition, a user could easily learn
new commands or arrangements in very little time.

The court also stated that it is irrelevant whether the menu command
hierarchy could be expressed in a number of different ways. However, the
court then distinguished the menu command hierarchy from a computer
program. The court reasoned that Borland could achieve the same
capabilities as the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet program without copying the
program code, but the capabilities of the Lotus 1-2-3 menu command
hierarchy could not be achieved without copying the entire hierarchy.Conclusion:
There is great divide within the software industry, judiciary and academia
on the issue of copyright protection for user interfaces and menu command
hierarchy. While some have argued that copyright protection for user
interfaces provides vital incentives for development of better products
Other have highlighted the importance of standardization of software user
interfaces which serves the interests of both software users and
developers.

In this context it is pertinent to note that history of software
development has indicated that with or without the copyright protection
being extended to user interfaces, the growth in the software industry had
been rapid and unhindered. Further, copyright protection can actually
impede growth, as development of user interfaces has been evolutionary in
nature with one developer borrowing from the earlier ideas of another and
then improving user interfaces further.

The court rejected the standardization arguments in in Lotus Development
Corp. v. Paperback Software International while granting copyright
protection to the plaintiff. However considering the importance of
standardization in any industry especially in a technologically related,
the court rejection of standardization norms seems flawed. Therefore it is
submitted that the court in Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland
International was correct in recognizing the importance of
inter-operability and standardization while denying the plaintiff
copyright protection. Further, the court's reasoning that menu command
hierarchy as 'method of operation' and thus not eligible for copyright
protection is substantiated by industry practice.

To conclude, we can state that while user interfaces do deserve individual
elements copyright protection when there is sufficient originality, the
protection should not be extended to cases where it hinders
standardization and inter-operability.

#
The Rights protected by Copyright Law: Copyright law seeks to promote
human creativity and confers several rights on the copyright owner.
International agreements, among which the most important is the Berne
Convention, 1886....

# Copyright Law in India:
Copyright is a form of intellectual property protection granted under Indian law
to the creators of original works of authorship such as literary works
(including computer programs, tables and compilations including computer
databases which may be expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form,
including a machine readable medium), dramatic, musical and artistic works,
cinematographic films and sound recordings, fees for copyright registration in
India.

# Copyrighting Photograph has become very complicated now NOC from the
photographed person is also required.

#
Challenges of Copyright And Cyber Space:
The main focus of this paper is to enlighten not only the academicians but also
the non tech savvy laymen to have first-hand information about the internet,
cyberspace and their linkage with Intellectual Property Rights especially
copyright.

How To Submit Your Article:

Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles

Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept
Articles Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact:
editor@legalserviceindia.com